JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to the letter Pen 26/5/R 2606014/pt 7358/13-14/136331 dated 19.12.2013, quash the same and to direct the respondents to count the petitioner's half of the past services rendered by him in the post of Village Karnam from 01.08.1973 to 14.11.1980 (i.e., 3 years 1 months and 22 days) and to revise the pension and pensionary benefits along with arrears.) 1. The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for counting 50% of the services rendered by him as Village Karnam, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Village Karnam in the erstwhile Administrative Service on 01.08.1973 in Perumangalam Village. He continued till the abolition of the said post on 14.11.1980. Thereafter, the petitioner was directly re-appointed as Village Administrative Officer and he retired from service on 30.04.2011. The petitioner is a pensioner and he is now receiving pension. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that 50% of his services rendered in the post of Village Karnam is to be reckoned for the purpose of calculating the services as per the amendment to Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. The said claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Principal Accountant General of Tamil Nadu. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move this Writ Petition. 4. The regular service rendered by the petitioner in the post of Village Administrative Officer has already been taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits and now the petitioner is receiving pension for the qualifying services rendered by him in the said post. 5. As far as the Village Karnam post is concerned, it was temporary and part-time in nature. Thus, the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was working in a part-time post and therefore, he is not eligible for the benefit of grant of 50% of the services, as per the amendment to Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. 6. The issue in this regard has already been elaborately considered by this Court in the case of S.Chinnakulandai Vs. 6. The issue in this regard has already been elaborately considered by this Court in the case of S.Chinnakulandai Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rural Development Department & others, passed in W.P.No.9562 of 2014, dated 20.07.2022, wherein it was held as follows:- "Analysis:- 20. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as part-time Panchayat Clerk. This Court, even before the Judgement of the Division Bench dated 26.02.2021, considered the nature of services with reference to the Service Rules as far as part-time Panchayat Clerks are concerned in W.P. (MD) No.20246 of 2013, dated 22.07.2019. 21. Considering the Judgements referred in the aforementioned paragraphs, it is clear that the Judgements of the Division Benches passed during the years 2016 and 2018 were over-ruled by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case R.Kaliyamoorthy (cited supra). Thus, the Judgement of the Hon'ble Full Bench is to be followed for the purpose of extending the benefit of Rule 11(4) of the Pension Rules. 22. Even regarding the application of equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dkshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others Vs. Bachan Singh, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 793 held that "in other words, the Supreme Court applied Article 14 only after finding that the employee was actually entitled in law for the benefit that he was seeking. The Supreme Court did not apply Article 14 blindfold, merely because other similarly placed employees got a benefit. Therefore, the Court has a duty before invoking Article 14 to see whether the employee is entitled to the benefit he was seeking". 23. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending the benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of delays and laches as well as acquiescence. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of delays and laches as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts, who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim the benefit of the Judgement rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delay, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. 24. The above principle reiterated in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Aravind Kumar Shrivastava reported in 2015 (1) SCC 347 , is to be applied only to cases where the employees are legitimately entitled to some benefits but it was denied to them either wrongly or on a wrong interpretation of the Rules/Circulars. 25. Thus, Courts are bound to independently consider the fair circumstances and the applications of statutes and rules even in respect of the persons claiming similar benefits. Thus, the principles laid down in Aravind Kumar Shrivastava (cited supra) could be invoked only in two types of cases namely (1) cases of wrongful denial of a rightful benefits, or (2) cases of wrongful denial of a doubtful benefit. They cannot be applied to a rightful denial of a benefit, which is not due to them. 26. No doubt, consistency helps the parties to a litigation to know where they stand. But, when it is brought to the notice of the Court that on most of the earlier occasions, several similarly placed employees have obtained orders on the ground that the issue is already covered by a decision of this Court and that it was only in this manner that several employees got a benefit that was not legitimately due to them, the Court cannot shut its eyes and choose to prefer maintenance of discipline rather than upholding public interest. 27. As a matter of fact, the greatness of the Court lies only in its courage and ability to correct its mistakes. Justice is more precious than discipline. This was the principle that the Supreme Court highlighted in A.R.Antulay Vs. 27. As a matter of fact, the greatness of the Court lies only in its courage and ability to correct its mistakes. Justice is more precious than discipline. This was the principle that the Supreme Court highlighted in A.R.Antulay Vs. R.S.Nayak, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1531 . It was observed in the said decision that "in rectifying an error, no personal inhibitions should debar the Court because no person should suffer by reason of any mistake of the Court." The Supreme Court focused on the elementary rule of justice that no party should suffer due to the mistake of the Court. Therefore, this Court should not feel shackled either by the rules of procedure or by the principles of propriety, when it is so glaring that a gross injustice has been done to the State (1) by Writ Petitions getting allowed at the stage of admission, and (2) by getting those Orders implemented under threat of contempt. This is especially so when the earliest decision that was followed in all other cases, did not decide the scale of pay to be granted for Selection and Special Grades. There could be no equality in illegality. An illegality will not undergo a metamorphosis and become legal, merely because it received the seal of approval of a Court of law. Article 14 is a positive concept and that it cannot be enforced in a negative manner. If an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior Court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing wrong orders. 28. In similar circumstances, in the case of P.Singaravelan and others Vs. The District Collector, Tiruppur reported in (2020) 3 SCC 133 , the Hon'be Supreme held as follows:- "7. Applying these observations to the present case, it is clear that there has been no pronouncement by this Court constituting the law of the land as to the interpretation of G.O.Ms.No.162. In such a situation, it is open for us to proceed to decide the instant appeals uninfluenced by the prior orders of this Court dismissing SLPs against the grant of relief to drivers placed similarly as the Appellants herein. ........ 24. In such a situation, it is open for us to proceed to decide the instant appeals uninfluenced by the prior orders of this Court dismissing SLPs against the grant of relief to drivers placed similarly as the Appellants herein. ........ 24. Thus, it is evident that the Appellants cannot claim the Selection Grade and Special Grade Scales of pay of Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000 respectively, solely on the strength of earlier decisions of the High Court, without showing how they, themselves, are entitled to such benefit in the first place. In such a situation, we are of the considered view that the Appellants can only be granted the benefit of the Selection Grade and Special Grade scales of pay to which they are lawfully entitled in terms of G.O.Ms.No.162, i.e. Rs.4000-6000 and Rs.4300-6000 respectively." 29. Keeping in mind the principles and the Judgements elaborately discussed in the aforementioned paragraphs, the admitted fact in the case on hand is that the petitioner was appointed as part-time Panchayat Clerk and subsequently appointed as Panchayat Assistant and thereafter as Junior Assistant on regular basis and retired from services. It is further admitted that the regular services rendered by the petitioner was already taken into consideration for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits and he had received all such benefits. The grievance is that 50% of the part-time Panchayat Clerk services were not taken into consideration, for the purpose of reckoning the qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits. 30. Rule 11(2)(i) of the Pension Rules contemplates that half of the services shall be counted only in a job involving whole time employment and not part-time. In the present case, even in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has stated that he was appointed as part-time Panchayat Clerk. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court also held that Rule 11 is to be followed scrupulously for the purpose of extending the benefit of counting 50% of the services to the temporary/daily wages/consolidated pay employees. 31. This being the factum established, the Judgements relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no avail to them, as the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court held that Rule 11 and Rule 11(4) of the Pension Rules is to be followed scrupulously for the purpose of counting 50% of the services rendered by the employees. 31. This being the factum established, the Judgements relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no avail to them, as the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court held that Rule 11 and Rule 11(4) of the Pension Rules is to be followed scrupulously for the purpose of counting 50% of the services rendered by the employees. After the Full Bench Judgement, another Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court, in a batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD) Nos.1629 of 2018, etc., delivered the Judgement on 26.02.2021, dismissing all the Writ Appeals filed by the part-time Panchayat Clerks seeking the benefit of counting 50% of the services. 32. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that even based on the Judgement of the Hon'ble Full Bench and the subsequent Judgement of the Hon'ble Division Bench and independently applying the principles to be followed in such circumstances by the Court, as discussed above, the relief as such sought for in this Writ Petition cannot be granted. 33. Beyond all the Judgements referred above, as emphasized by the Apex Court of India, Article 14 is to be applied only if the claim is in accordance with law, but not otherwise. Thus, on independent application of facts and applying the principles of law to be followed and therefore, the case of the writ petitioner fails. 34. With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed." 5. In view of the principles settled in the aforesaid order, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity as such, in respect of the order impugned passed by the respondents. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.